2 Role of Tie Strength
2.5 Dimensions, indicators and predictors of tie strength
Once mentioned the significance and the potential applications in numerous fields (see section 2.3) that supposes the knowledge of the different tie strengths, there arises in this point the need to answer the question: How can tie strength be measured and based on what factors? That is why the different dimensions, indicators and predictors to take into account when measuring tie strength are presented in this section.
In this field, many authors have provided with different contributions. Below, some of the ideas presented by some of the most outstanding authors and papers will be presented.
And, after having analysed the existing literature, a summary of the dimensions, indicators and predictors that are considered more relevant will be made.
It is essential to start this analysis with the seminal article The Strength of Weak Ties.
Granovetter already shows, through its definition of tie strength, the main dimensions that comprise this concept. In particular, tie strength is initially defined through the combination of four dimensions: the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie (Granovetter, 1973).
However, after the work of Granovetter, new contributions have been made over the years that have allowed to go in depth in the analysis, so that the list of dimensions and relevant factors of tie strength have increased considerably.
Tampere University – TUNI 17 Among subsequent research, authors like Lin et al., who introduce the concept of an individual´s social resources within a social network, stand out. He defines them as “the wealth, status, power as well as social ties of those persons who are directly or indirectly linked to the individual”. Therefore, Lin et al. defend that the access a person has to social resources is also an important factor to take into account (Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981). Lin et al. state that according to the level of social resources available to an individual, he or she will be found in one level or another of the pyramid, being at the upper levels those individuals with greater power in terms of social resources, that is, with a greater " prestige". In general, it can be concluded that Lin et al. affirm that this social distance between individuals is influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, race, gender, political affiliation or education level that each of them possesses.
And it is precisely this social distance, in turn, that mainly influences tie strength (Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017).
For their part, Marsden et al., in their work "Measuring tie strength", continue with the idea proposed by Granovetter, considering as main dimensions the ones suggested by him. But, in particular, Marsden et al. consider that the measurement of "closeness" or
"intesity" is the best indicator of tie strength, which is mainly defined by two factors: the time and depth of the relationship (Marsden and Campbell, 1984).
Marsden et al. difference between two types of variables: indicators and predictors. He considers that indicators refer to real components of tie strength (duration, closeness, frequency, mutual confiding, breadth of topics) (Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007), while predictors refer to aspects of relations, that are related to, but are not components of, tie strength (Marsden and Campbell, 1984). That is, predictors refers to contextual contingencies such as neighbourhood, workplace (Marsden and Campbell, 1984), similar socio-economic status, affiliation (Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009), occupation prestige (Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007), social distance (Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981), recency of communication (Lin, Dayton and Greenwald, 1978), interaction frequency (Granovetter, 1973), possessing at least one mutual friend (Shi, Adamic and Strauss, 2007) or communication reciprocity (Friedkin, 1980).
Wellman and Wortley claim that providing emotional support acts as a signal that indicates stronger ties (e.g., offering advice on family problems) (Wellman and Wortley, 1990; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009). And Burt defends that structural factors also influence tie strength (e.g. informal social circles or network topology) (Burt, 1995; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
18 Ana María Soto Blázquez Subsequently, Gilbert et al. conduct a work of analysis and compilation of the information collected and studied so far, and they do so by summarizing the dimensions identified to date, resulting in a list of seven main dimensions. These are: intensity, intimacy, duration, reciprocal services (Granovetter, 1973), structural variables, emotional support and social distance (Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
Xiang et al. proposed a model to infer relationship strength based on profile similarity and interaction activity (Xiang, Neville and Rogati, 2010; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017). Up to that moment, to determine tie strength, methods that required the intervention of individuals had been used, based on answers to different questions.
However, the suggested model in this work opens a new door, proposing an unsupervised model, which allows to infer a continuous-valued relationship strength for links (Xiang, Neville and Rogati, 2010).
Subsequently, Gilbert et al., in their work Predicting Tie Strength in a New Medium, reinforce their theory presented in Predicting Tie Strength with Social Media (Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009), by presenting evidence that their Facebook tie strength model can be extrapolated and generalized to new social mediums (e.g. Twitter) (Gilbert, 2012).
Hossmann et al. affirm that social, mobility and communication ties are related (Hossmann et al., 2012; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017), leaving a new contribution when analysing and identifying new indicators or predictors of tie strength and the relationship among them. In particular, Hossmann et al. conclude that the three dimensions of tie strength mentioned (social, meeting and communication) depend on each other (Hossmann et al., 2012).
There are several works that have continued to make contributions to this field, as is the case of Rodríguez et al. (2014), whose study proposes the analysis and evaluation of the context and the strength of the individual's ties by using signs of interaction available form social sites APIs (e.g. retweets or private messages in Twitter) (Servia-Rodríguez et al., 2014).
Therefore, after analysing and reviewing the existing literature, the following sections propose the dimensions, indicators and predictors that have been considered most relevant as a result of the studies and articles published on the topic.
Tampere University – TUNI 19 Different dimensions of tie strength
This section presents the main dimensions, which include the main factors to be taken into account when measuring tie strength, as well as a brief explanation of each of them for its correct understanding.
1) Amount of time:
This dimension is mainly measured through two indicators, duration and frequency of contact (Granovetter, 1973; Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981; Marsden and Campbell, 1984;
Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017). Referring to the seminal work of Granovetter, it is presented that the higher frequency and duration of interactions between individuals, the greater their feelings of friendship will be between them (Granovetter, 1973).
2) Emotional intensity:
This dimension is defined as the degree, force or amount of strength that something has (Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017). Therefore, individuals with a higher degree of emotional intensity will present a higher tie strength (Granovetter, 1973; Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981; Mathews et al., 1998; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
3) Intimacy (mutual confiding):
Petróczi et al. defend this dimension as the most important factor of tie strength (Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007). It refers to the state of having a private or a very personal relationship (Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017). This dimension can also be understood as the existence of mutual trust and confiding between individuals, so it is related to indicators such as the willingness to offer support to another person or the breadth of topics discussed (Granovetter, 1973; Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
4) Reciprocal services:
This dimension refers to actions carried out in common between individuals (Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017). This reciprocity dimension assumes that individuals with higher tie strength have greater willingness to share what knowledge, information and resources they have (Granovetter, 1973; Haythornthwaite, 2005; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
5) Structural variables:
This dimension refers to variables such as the overlapping social circles, shared organization affiliation, social homogeneity, network topology or informal social circles
20 Ana María Soto Blázquez (Alba and Kadushin, 1976; Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981; Burt, 1995; Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009). Therefore, a higher tie strength tends to connect similar people and that are in the same social structures (Haythornthwaite, 2005; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009).
6) Emotional support:
This dimension is associated with variables such as offering advice or help in family concerns, or showing empathy or caring about another person (Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Wellman and Wortley, 1990; Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009). Thus, individuals who possess a high degree of emotional support, present a higher probability of having a stronger tie between them.
7) Social distance:
This dimension refers to variables such as the degree of similarity in educational level, political orientation, gender, race or socioeconomic status (Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981;
Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009). Thus, individuals with less social distance between them, have a greater disposition or probability of presenting a higher tie strength.
Indicators and predictors of tie strength
In this section, the main indicators that have been considered the most relevant after the evaluation of the existing literature are presented.
Tampere University – TUNI 21
Depth of relation (Marsden and Campbell, 1984)
Mutual acknowledgement of contact/
Overlap of social circles (Granovetter, 1973; Alba and Kadushin, 1976; Marsden and Campbell, 1984)
22 Ana María Soto Blázquez
On the other hand, also in this section, the main generic predictors considered in the literature are shown. These predictors are those presented in the following table.
Predictors References
Kinship status (Feld, 1982; Marsden and Campbell,
1984, 2012)
Neighbour status (Feld, 1982; Marsden and Campbell,
1984, 2012)
Co-worker status (Marsden and Campbell, 1984)
Overlapping organizational memberships (Marsden and Campbell, 1984)
Socioeconomic status
Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017)
Education level
(Lin, Ensel and Vaughn, 1981; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009; Liberatore and Quijano-Sanchez, 2017)
Tampere University – TUNI 23 Occupation prestige (Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007)
Recency of communication (Lin, Dayton and Greenwald, 1978;
Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009)
Interaction frequency (Granovetter, 1973; Gilbert and
Karahalios, 2009)
Possessing at least one mutual friend (Shi, Adamic and Strauss, 2007; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009)
Communication reciprocity (Friedkin, 1980; Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009)
Shared social circles
(Alba and Kadushin, 1976; Beggs and Hurlbert, 1997; Petroczi, Nepusz and Bazsó, 2007)
Table 4. Predictors of tie strength
24 Ana María Soto Blázquez